Category: First Amendment rights

Categories
First Amendment rights local leaders

Intimidation in Southborough

We have free speech in America. Guaranteed by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. But a First Amendment guarantee doesn’t make freedom a certainty. It’s not as if we don’t have to stand up for our rights.

But stand up to whom?

Usually, threats to free speech come from government . . . most recently, the government of the town of Southborough, Massachusetts.

The blog MySouthborough.com, run by Susan Fitzgerald, is devoted to her town, providing a platform for residents to speak out and get heard.

And there’s the rub. Sometimes people in government don’t like criticism.

Fitzgerald’s website irked local head honchos last autumn. Someone calling himself (or herself) “Marty” had commented, online, about how the town’s Police Chief Selection Committee was meeting behind closed doors. Marty suggested that committee members were breaking the state’s open meeting requirements, and insinuated that the whole process was prejudiced in favor of one particular applicant.

Sounds fairly innocuous? Not to the town’s counsel, who demanded to know “Marty’s” actual name.

Fitzgerald wouldn’t give it to him, free speech and all. The lawyer blustered about how Marty was intimidating the selection panel. A laughable claim. A blog comment is intimidation?

And then the counsel warned her — intimidating her — to watch more carefully what’s posted on her blog.

Fitzgerald remains firm. And she defends anonymous contributors. “Choosing anonymity doesn’t make their opinion any less valid,” she states.

Or any less protected.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom

Searching for Google’s China Policy

Google took flak a few years ago when it announced that it would cooperate with Chinese censorship to operate a Chinese version of the Google search engine. The company’s top brass wrung their hands about the decision, since it seemed to clash with Google’s official “do no evil” policy.

In January, Google and other large companies suffered a major cyber attack apparently originating in China. In Google’s case, the target of the assault was the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Further investigation in the weeks since then has tended to confirm that the Chinese government sponsored the attack.

In response to the attack and further assaults on freedom of Internet speech in China, Google said that it was “no longer willing to continue censoring” its search results. It said that it would shut down Google.cn if the government would not let it provide unfiltered results.

Richard MacManus of ReadWriteWeb reports that Google.cn is still censoring its search results. The Chinese government isn’t about to cave.

So why hasn’t Google left China?

Sure, it would be disruptive. People would lose their jobs. But in January’s   statement, Google seemed to be taking a belated but praiseworthy stand on principle. They should follow through. If there’s anything worse than doing evil, it’s publicly repenting it and then continuing to do evil as if nothing had happened.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

Idealism or Brute Power Play?

Senator John McCain and other politicians advocate violating your right to contribute as much as you want to the political candidates you support. They also advocate violating your right to speak as much as you want, either positively or negatively, about a candidate.

Do they support these repressive doctrines out of misguided idealism, or misguided pragmatic politics? Doubtless the answer depends on the individual. But McCain certainly acts as if today’s confusing welter of campaign finance regulation best serves as a very convenient club to beat an upstart challenger over the head and shoulders.

McCain faces a tough primary. His conservative challenger, J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman, is also a radio talk show host. Or at least he was until buddies of the senator began yelping to the Federal Election Commission. See, Hayworth attacked McCain on his show, which supposedly makes his show a form of “political advertising.” As a result of this pressure, Hayworth and the station agreed to take the show off the air.

Jason Rose, who works with Hayworth, calls what happened a “political mugging.” Sounds right to me.

McCain is on record endorsing what his friends did here. So . . . Hayworth can say anything he wants to — à la the First Amendment — unless it’s a criticism of McCain.

Funny how the framers failed to stipulate this when they were putting together the Constitution and that First Amendment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

Corporations Are Made of People

After the Supreme Court torpedoed restrictions on political speech by corporations, foes of the First Amendment bitterly denounced its Citizens United v. FEC decision.

They don’t consider themselves enemies of freedom of speech, of course. Instead, they think the Court erred by assuming that corporations have First Amendment rights. They say corporations aren’t people; they can’t have rights.

But hey: Corporations — non-profit or for profit — are actually made up of people.

One corporation denouncing free speech for other corporations is The New York Times. Their angry editorial states, “The Constitution . . . mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.”

First, the Constitution does not assign any rights to “press” or “religion.” It forbids Congress from abridging individuals’ freedom of the press, freedom of religion.

Second, the Constitution doesn’t exhaustively list relevant institutions. The drafters thought everybody knew that one way we exercise their rights is to organize, cooperatively, into groups — à la freedom of association.

Media corporations have been exempt from limits on campaign spending and political speech. The Times group editorial mind ignores this contradiction. They’re saying, “Our corporate speech is special and worthy of constitutional protection! We’re sincere and good! Members of other corporations, by contrast, can’t be trusted! Therefore, the First Amendment does not apply to them!”

Insist all you like, Mr. Times. You’re still wrong.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

No More Speech Rationing

Advocates of campaign finance regulation, what George Will calls “speech rationing,” say letting corporations — including non-profit corporations — spend unlimited money on political speech corrupts democracy.

Actually, muzzling speech is what corrupts democracy and the point of it: i.e., to protect our freedoms, including freedom of speech.

Protecting these freedoms is a vital political good, even if some speech is deplorable.

The recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, dramatically strikes down unconstitutional limits on electioneering by businesses and non-profits. But it leaves intact unconstitutional limits on their direct contributions to campaigns.

It also doesn’t touch requirements forcing campaign donors to disclose personal information. In his partial dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to how California donors giving more than $100 must reveal their names and addresses, info then publicized on the Internet. Supporters of a recent controversial ballot proposition were subjected to intimidation and property damage as a result.

The disclosure laws have spawned what Justice Thomas calls “a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”

Thomas is right. And campaign finance regulation should be tossed out root and branch.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom too much government

Googling and Snuggling No More?

After years of abetting Chinese censorship, Google may finally take a stand. The world leader in Internet search may no longer be willing to help impose the Red regime’s repressive measures. The last straw? A cyber attack on Google that originated in China and targeted email accounts of Chinese dissidents. Other companies were also attacked.

In recent decades, China has loosened controls on its economy. But it is loath to permit any significant scraps of civil liberty as well, like the right to speak out freely in criticism of the government.

China lets the Internet function within its borders. But it also erects firewalls, filters and other restrictions to block or limit access to various corners of cyberspace. For years, Google has cravenly played along, preventing phrases like “Tiananmen Square massacre” from being searched on the Chinese version of its search engine.

Google officers have long squirmed over their hypocritical willingness to “do evil.” Now a Google lawyer says the company is “no longer willing to continue censoring our results. . . .” They’re taking a few weeks to mull their next move. But they say they’ll leave China altogether if its government won’t agree to let Google’s search engine function freely.

China’s rulers won’t agree; so I hope Google does what it says it will do. Some things one should just not collaborate with. Tyranny is at the top of the list.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

We Protest

You don’t need to commit violence to conduct a large, effective public protest of perceived injustice. The many Tea Party demonstrations against our federal government’s latest socialist excesses prove that.

But what if violent and nonviolent protests are equated in the minds of peace keepers?

In Reason magazine, journalist Radly Balko reports on several disturbing examples of crackdowns of persons assembled in a public place. In one incident, motivated by the occasionally violent protests of last fall’s G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, police ordered students gathered in public to disperse forthwith, though they had broken no laws. Anyone who moved too slowly was subject to arrest. Apparently, a few violent protesters hit town for the summit, but they were a distinct minority.

Balko isn’t impressed by a university official’s claim that the gatherings had to be busted up because of the “potential” for trouble. That’s a dangerous standard to apply to peaceful assembly that is not only constitutionally protected but also an important bulwark against tyranny.

Police can make honest mistakes like anybody else, especially when in charged and confusing situations. No doubt there’s sometimes a fuzzy line between a peaceful if rowdy protest and one that’s turning violent. But Balko suggests that police are increasingly harassing and handcuffing people only because they are peacefully dissenting.

Not only is that not right, it demands protest.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense education and schooling First Amendment rights

No More Cruel and Unusual?

In recent years there’s been a spate of so-called “zero tolerance” policies — actually, zero common sense policies — in our schools, especially after Columbine and 9/11.

Last October in Delaware, six-year-old Zachary Christie faced 45 days of reform school for bringing a camping utensil to lunch. The gizmo combined a knife, fork and spoon. There was no evidence of evil intention. But the school thought their zero common sense policy against weapons had been violated. After a public outcry, the draconian punishment was dropped. The local school board modified some of its rules, though only for kindergartners and first-graders.

In Florida, lawmakers recently revised zero common sense policies statewide in hopes that only students who pose a genuine threat get expelled or arrested.

Hurray for any glimmer of a return to common sense. But why all these policies to begin with? Why instruct educators anywhere to respond maniacally to meaningless deviationism?

Maybe common sense and conscience are often the same thing.

Imagine if jay walking, littering and talking too loud in elevators were punished in comparably cruel and unusual fashion. Imagine judges and prosecutors always claiming they can’t distinguish between trivia and real crime — so better respond to both with equal force. Would we not accuse such meters-out of injustice of crimes of their own?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

A Holiday Declaration

Ten days before Christmas, America noted the 218th anniversary of the Bill of Rights . . . and I hadn’t even finished my own holiday shopping. I might wish that I could get you a pristine, enforceable Bill of RIghts, but it’s not just up to me.

It’s up to Congress, the Judicial branch, and the Executive as well. That’s a lot of people who need to be “on the same page.”

But it shouldn’t be impossible. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, are short and clear. They easily fit on one page.

What you may not know, however, is that these amendments were based, in part, on a previous version known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The earlier version is helpful to establish context and eludicate meaning.

Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that some of the Declaration’s enumerated planks lack specificity. They serve as general reminders of how government is supposed to operate. Consider the 15th plank, which states that “no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

I hate to be the bearer of bad news on Christmas, but that sense of how government should work is no longer followed as the law of the land. Boy, I sure have a great idea for a New Year’s resolution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

Arresting Developments

Gustavo Rendon was arrested in broad daylight — right in front of his two boys. One St. Louis policeman threatened that his boys would be sent into foster care.

Rendon’s crime? He passed out fliers in his neighborhood. He spoke out on public policy — in this case, opposing an eminent domain land grab and promoting a petition effort to put the city’s development plan to a vote.

Dave Roland, an attorney for the Show-Me Institute, says this outrageous behavior is part of “an unsettling pattern” . . . of squelching free speech.

Roland also points to St. Louis’s attempt to force Jim Roos to take down a sign protesting the city’s abuse of eminent domain — a case still in court. He mentions a recent instance where the Northeast Ambulance and Fire District actually sought to ban citizens from public meetings.

Roland’s “most disturbing” example concerns the Missouri Municipal League. The League has filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot titles for two anti-eminent domain abuse measures, effectively putting both petition drives on hold.

At a recent meeting of the Missouri Bar Association’s Eminent Domain Committee, Municipal League attorney Carrie Hermeling admitted that their “main objective” is “to delay the gathering of signatures.” Adding, “[H]opefully we’re accomplishing that.”

Thwarting the people, denying their basic rights — quite an accomplishment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.